Brian's argument is that WITHOUT some sort of speed segregation, you have Asia-like disorder.

No it isn't. Once again you've done a great job of confusing yourself.

Well, perhaps you can unconfuse me by explaining how the following excerpt from post #28 does not argue that without some sort of speed segregation you have "traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers", wich is arguably disorder (and what I meant), and is "exactly what happens in Asia".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff

If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.

The logical implication is that if cycling is 50% of the traffic volume, with some sort of speed segregation, you have (more) order (otherwise, what would be his point)?

But for that speed segregation to have any effect, general following of the rules would have to be implied, no? Hence, general following of the rules has been the implied assumption in this discussion since at least post #28, and why supposed counter-examples of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant.

I'm tell'n you, dude. Do your own research. Report back what you find, and we'll all comment on your analysis. Jeez. I assume there is a university library somewhere around San Diego? One of the UC universities, isn't there? Go there, pay the $20 or whatever to gain access to interlibrary loan, and sit down and do some research. It's your hobby. Not mine. I ride my bike more than talk about it.

Brian, I have no reason to believe that any such information exists. Certainly, nothing you've ever written has ever given me any such reason. I'm not going to waste my time looking for something for which I have every reason to believe does not exist, and for which I have no reason to believe does exist. That's the point of this thread, and 4 pages of nothing only makes the point.

I see no reason to change my view of the science of bicycle transportation...

Good for you. But it was HH who was asking, not you, so I'm not seeing the point. If you've done the research and are not convinced, then good on you. But if there is no hope of holding a reasonable discussion on the subject, then why are you here?

Quote:

I have never seen a study that demonstrates significant benefit from bike-lane stripes, and those on this forum who advocate bike-lane stripes have not advanced any study that demonstrates such benefits with an explanation of why they think it does demonstrate such benefit. In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.

Enough with the insults already. Damn man, are you off your meds? Tell you what. I'll just repeat your words back to you, they have as much relevence.

In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.

Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?

And don't you go thinking that I cannot produce an argument for bike lanes. I've produced countless arguments. None have been refuted. Use the search function to look up previous discussions. I don't care to repeat them to a person who is unable to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

Why don't you just read Brian's description of his argument above, in his reply to you in post 76?

At this point, I don't think that it's possible to "unconfuse" you.

Brian was confused. He was thinking about what he started to argue only in #62, not #28.
In fact, in #28 he was explicitly talking about a situation "without some sort of speed segregation" which is "exactly what happens in Asia".

Later, in #62 and above in #76 he refer to the "the 'natural' speed segregation [that] was already followed in Asia".

So the "some sort of speed segregation" which is "exactly what happens in Asia" in #28 is something beyond the "natural speed segregation" "already followed in Asia" he speaks of in #76.

In any case, regardless of what he meant by "some sort of speed segregation", it would be ineffective if the rules are not being generallly followed.

Hence, general following of the rules has been the implied assumption in this discussion since at least post #28, and why supposed counter-examples of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant.

Brian, I have no reason to believe that any such information exists. Certainly, nothing you've ever written has ever given me any such reason. I'm not going to waste my time looking for something for which I have every reason to believe does not exist, and for which I have no reason to believe does exist. That's the point of this thread, and 4 pages of nothing only makes the point.

If you don't want to use your time on the subject (which you evidently care about), then why should I care? You are just some guy...

You really ought to expect by now that nobody will seriously answer to such a contrived "challenge" as you've made in the OP.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are simply lazy and enjoy arguing. Otherwise, you'd do your own legwork regarding your own curiosities and quit trying to get others to do it for you. And BTW, you expressed surprise that I "got" your position on bike lanes. What is that? First of all it's because I understand what I read, and also because I did do my own legwork in the past and you have had very few unique things to say on the subject. It is very easy to state the position of a person if that person refuses to take a unique position on the subject. All one has to do is verify that the argument is on the party line or not, and you're done. It has very rarely, for you, strayed from the party line.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

HH: I also noticed that when you repeated back my position, you couldn't resist putting in some of your own counter-arguments. How bold of you.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

Okay, I'll stop posting here. FWIW HH, on the fact that you will not accept the last two years of discussions as valid; I'm not going to waste any more of your time on this subject. Have fun with your research. I am interested in hearing what comes of it. Start a thread when you are through and provide your thesis as an attachment.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.

In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.

Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?

The difference is that Forester has written a book, Bicycle Transportation Engineering, that has hundreds of pages supporting his position, and there are zero pages anywhere, including this thread, supporting the opposite position.

Okay, I'll stop posting here. FWIW HH, on the fact that you will not accept the last two years of discussions as valid; I'm not going to waste any more of your time on this subject. Have fun with your research. I am interested in hearing what comes of it. Start a thread when you are through and provide your thesis as an attachment.

The discussion is valid, But none of it constitutes scientific reasons supporting the advocacy of bike lanes.

If you don't want to use your time on the subject (which you evidently care about), then why should I care? You are just some guy...

You really ought to expect by now that nobody will seriously answer to such a contrived "challenge" as you've made in the OP.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are simply lazy and enjoy arguing. Otherwise, you'd do your own legwork regarding your own curiosities and quit trying to get others to do it for you. And BTW, you expressed surprise that I "got" your position on bike lanes. What is that? First of all it's because I understand what I read, and also because I did do my own legwork in the past and you have had very few unique things to say on the subject. It is very easy to state the position of a person if that person refuses to take a unique position on the subject. All one has to do is verify that the argument is on the party line or not, and you're done. It has very rarely, for you, strayed from the party line.

Brian,

I posted a simple question in the OP. Everyone, including you, were free to respond in any way you wished. You could have posted scientific evidence that supported the advocacy of bike lanes. You could have left the whole thread blank. But you and many others chose to respond with irrelevant nonsense about Asian traffic disorder. You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

The discussion is valid, But none of it constitutes scientific reasons supporting the advocacy of bike lanes.

why?

And where is the science supporting WOLs? No logic, remember, you've ruled that out the validity of logical argument with your comment above. But science. The texas study and the florida studies both find that WOLs significantly reduce the presence of cyclists on the streets, forcing them into the gutter or on the sidewalk. We've talked about those before, I know that. That's science. In fact, nowhere except some logical exercises have I heard that WOLs trump bike lanes in any way.

Don't hold up those videos. That's not science either. Or "Street Smarts" or "Effective Cycling" (actually, Effecive Cycling says very little on the subject). How about some choice quotes from "Bicycle Transportation"? What's in there that supports WOLs? Science, remember. No anecdotes, no logic, no supposition. Just recorded observation. And sources too; and if it is JF as the source, sorry, but I'm going to have to require validating sources as well - his books are not peer reviewed. The only peer reviewed article he has (and, for a study to be scientific, it must be peer reviewed. That's how it works in the science community), is one, probably invited, paper which merely reports the controversy. That's not science either.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

Quote:

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"

Quote:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. [Fortean Times Number 82.]

I read Brian's post (#28) and understood the point he was making, as described in his reply to you in post #76.

Why do you think that Brian was able to effectively communicate his point to me, yet you could not understand that very same point?

I don't know.

This is what he said in #28:

Quote:

If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.

This is what he said in 76:

Quote:

Actually, I was pointing out that the "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help.

How you understood the #76 point that speed segregation was already followed in Asia from the contradictory #28 post that was talking about the exactly what happens in Asia situation without some sort of speed segregation is certainly beyond me.

I posted a simple question in the OP. Everyone, including you, were free to respond in any way you wished. You could have posted scientific evidence that supported the advocacy of bike lanes. You could have left the whole thread blank. But you and many others chose to respond with irrelevant nonsense about Asian traffic disorder. You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

I don't have to prove myself to everyone who issues a challenge. We've talked at length about the science and logic about bike lane advocacy. If you want to re-open threads talking about various studies, be my guest.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

How you understood the #76 point that speed segregation was already followed in Asia from the contradictory #28 post that was talking about the exactly what happens in Asia situation without some sort of speed segregation is certainly beyond me.

How about you quite quibbling about the details of an illustrative example and answer the argument I was putting forth. Remember? Limited space, everything slows down to a common denominator if we have human powered transportation mixed vehicularly with motorized transportation? You keep dancing and trying to undermine my example (which is merely illustrative, nothing more), and avoid the salient point.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

Exactly.

The assertion in question is "cycling advocacy should advocate for bike lanes".
The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that. That's what this thread is for; for those who assert this to meet their burden. Here we are at 5 pages and over 100 posts, and still nothing.

Just as the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that "cycling advoacy should advocate for vehicular cycling".

It was apparent to me that when he included the "without some sort of speed segregation" qualifier he was referring to legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.

That was my take too (in #28).

Quote:

I'm familiar with the "natural" speed segregation that occurs in parts of Asia so his post made sense to me.

Because, Helmie, you created a "distinction" between "artificial" speed segregation and "natural" speed segregation.

Here is where you bring up the idea of "natural" speed segregation

Ah, the mystery is solved. Yes, my original post was before this distinction was made. HH made this distinction in a response. See, it wasn't until post #34 by HH that this distinction was made. My original use of the term was in post #28. HH, you really are confusing yourself. I'm just trying to adapt to changing and splitting definitions.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

Title: EVALUATION OF BLUE BIKE-LANE TREATMENT IN PORTLAND, OREGON
Accession Number: 00798925
Record Type: Component
Language 1: English
Record URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1705-16
Abstract: Many European cities use colored markings at bicycle-motor vehicle crossings to reduce conflicts. To determine whether such colored markings help improve safety at American bicycle-motor vehicle crossings, the city of Portland, Oregon, studied the use of blue pavement markings and a novel signage system to delineate selected conflict areas. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), under contract to the Federal Highway Administration, analyzed the project data. From 1997 to 1999, Portland marked 10 conflict areas with paint, blue thermoplastic, and an accompanying "Yield to Cyclist" sign. All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints. The crossings were all at locations where the cyclist travels straight and the motorist crosses the bicycle lane in order to exit a roadway (such as an off-ramp situation), enter a right-turn lane, or merge onto a street from a ramp. The study used videotape analysis and found most behavior changes to be positive. Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path. However, the blue pavement also resulted in fewer cyclists turning their heads to scan for traffic or using hand signals, perhaps signifying an increased comfort level. The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas. (Emphasis added, jcr)
Supplemental Notes: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1705, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Research 2000.
TRIS Files: HRIS
Pagination: p. 107-115
Authors: Hunter, W W; Harkey, D L; Stewart, J R; Birk, M L
Features: Figures (8); Photos (3); References (5); Tables (3)

HH, I think if you only looked, did a bit of research, you'd find your answers. Let's see, that makes two scientific studies that I've posted which reinforce the need for bike lanes, one in Singapore and one in Portland, Oregon. Do you want more?

The assertion in question is "cycling advocacy should advocate for bike lanes".
The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that. That's what this thread is for; for those who assert this to meet their burden. Here we are at 5 pages and over 100 posts, and still nothing.

Just as the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that "cycling advoacy should advocate for vehicular cycling".

Who is arguing against you? I have before, but I'm not now. If you are truly curious and not trying to score debate points, do better than a one liner challenge - do some research, find some stuff, report your observations on such stuff. Then we can discuss.

__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

Because, Helmie, you created a "distinction" between "artificial" speed segregation and "natural" speed segregation.

Here is where you bring up the idea of "natural" speed segregation

Quote:

Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).

So are "bike lanes" and "slow truck lanes" "artificial" speed segregation?
And "slower traffic keeps to the right" rules are natural speed segregation?

Quote:

It was apparent to me that when he included the "without some sort of speed segregation" qualifier he was referring to legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.

I'm familiar with the "natural" speed segregation that occurs in parts of Asia so his post made sense to me.

If so, then what is Peter talking about? Sounds like he thinks "'natural' speed segregation" is something different from the "legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.", which are the "slower traffic keeps to the right" rules.

How about you quite quibbling about the details of an illustrative example and answer the argument I was putting forth. Remember? Limited space, everything slows down to a common denominator if we have human powered transportation mixed vehicularly with motorized transportation? You keep dancing and trying to undermine my example (which is merely illustrative, nothing more), and avoid the salient point.

I agree that with limited space everything slows down. And it's not just to the lowest common denominator.

For example, freeways with all vehicles capable of 65+ mph regularly slow down to speeds below that due to limited space.

Just because there are bikes mixed in in slow traffic doesn't mean they are causing the slowing.

Edit: the natural flow is that when there is sufficient space for motor traffic to move at faster speeds, cyclists tend to keep right. When there is insufficient space for fast motor speeds, bicyclists tend to merge into the mix. This is just as true on southern Cal arterials, Asian urban centers, and bike messengers doing deliveries in Manhattan.

Who is arguing against you? I have before, but I'm not now. If you are truly curious and not trying to score debate points, do better than a one liner challenge - do some research, find some stuff, report your observations on such stuff. Then we can discuss.

There were two general possible outcomes of this thread. I would consider either outcome to be a success.

No or little evidence for science supporting the advocacy of bike lanes is cited, making the point that such evidence probably does not exist.

Significant evidence is cited, making the point that there is significant scientific basis for advocating bike lanes.

Note that neither one is about arguing or debating. The fact that bike lane advocates like you chose to turn this into yet another meaningless semantic sophistfest speaks volumes.

Ah, the mystery is solved. Yes, my original post was before this distinction was made. HH made this distinction in a response. See, it wasn't until post #34 by HH that this distinction was made. My original use of the term was in post #28. HH, you really are confusing yourself. I'm just trying to adapt to changing and splitting definitions.

Congratulations. I pointed this out back in #82:

Quote:

By the way, back in post #28 (and vicinity), which is what I'm referring to above as where this discussion that is based on the assumption that general following of the rules is presupposed, you were not pointing out that "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help. You made that claim much later (#62).